Originally Posted by fritz
I found it questioning that they would include a discussion at the end of the study regarding annuities and TIPS (copied in my original post).
I included the authors' insurance agency only backgrounds in my second post to give everyone reading it my reasoning for making the comment of possible bias.
Hoped the info might be appreciated by those following this thread, and having read the article.
OK, I think we are in agreement then - it's good to be skeptical, and I think you raise some good points. I guess I'm saying I wouldn't be skeptical only because the source has some interest in the matter (few bother to publish something they have no interest in), I'm just always
skeptical, and need to see that the content passes the 'smell test', regardless the source (sometimes in spite of the source).
Originally Posted by Bikerdude
I don't recall any recent years of negative interest & dividends from my portfolio.
True, the interest & divs keep coming in. My point was that conservative investments aren't paying much now, so if one was being conservative, you need a big stash (maybe I wrongly assumed that poster was conservative, but the 'not touching principal' approach gave me that impression). With a big stash, tapping the principal isn't much of an issue anyway.
Maybe it's semantics, but I don't see too much difference between pulling 1% out of your principal, and seeing the NAV of a basket of bonds & div paying stocks loosing 1%. That's not apples-apples either, equities are just different from bonds, but 'not touching your principal' isn't some sort of holy grail either - it will come at a cost. And I'm not saying either is right/wrong, just need to look at the whole picture, is all.